Comparison of EQ-5D and SF-36 in untreated patients with symptoms of intermittent claudication
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To compare health-related quality of life (HRQoL) descriptions and utility scores in newly diagnosed peripheral arterial disease (PAD) patients, using two most widely used instruments, EuroQol 5D (EQ-5D) and Medical Outcome Study 36-item Short-Form Health Status Survey (SF-36). METHODS: Patients' self-assessment of HRQoL was measured by the Dutch versions of the EQ-5D and SF-36 in the 204 patients. RESULTS: Mean utility scores ranged from 0.675 for Short-Form Six-Dimension, 0.648 for the EQ-5D UK tariff and 0.715 for the Dutch EQ-5D tariff. A moderate correlation between the utility scores was found due to different valuation techniques of these instruments. CONCLUSION: Both instruments have clinical validity for use in the PAD and can be used alongside each other to provide a holistic assessment of the HRQoL. Before using these two instruments interchangeably for utility score calculations and healthcare resource allocation, a thorough sensitivity analysis is necessary to explore the robustness of the value argument based on these utility scores.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".